`rustfmt`: Run on `peer_handler.rs`

[tnull]

[ldk-reviews-bot]

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt as a reviewer! I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process. Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 89.34%. Comparing base (46cb5ff) to head (6403b34). Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3725      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.11%   89.34%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         156      156              
  Lines      123435   126684    +3249     
  Branches   123435   126684    +3249     
==========================================
+ Hits       109995   113191    +3196     
- Misses      10758    10828      +70     
+ Partials     2682     2665      -17     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[wpaulino]

Let me know if there's something particular left to address.

The tests could be cleaned up a bit more https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pull/3725#discussion_r2035775461.

[tnull]

The tests could be cleaned up a bit more #3725 (comment).

Excuse the delay here once more!

Now rebased and addressed this remaining comment by pulling out some more handlers into intermediate variables as a fixup. Let me know if there's something else you'd like to see.

[tnull]

Feel free to squash, IMO

Squashed without further changes.

[tnull]

Force-pushed with the following changes:

diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs b/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs
index bcae7690f..73c831884 100644
--- a/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs
+++ b/lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs
@@ -4420,48 +4420,40 @@ mod tests {
 
 		let act_three_with_init_b = fd_b.outbound_data.lock().unwrap().split_off(0);
-		assert!(!peer_a
-			.peers
-			.read()
-			.unwrap()
-			.get(&fd_a)
-			.unwrap()
-			.lock()
-			.unwrap()
-			.handshake_complete());
+		{
+			let peer_a_lock = peer_a.peers.read().unwrap();
+			let handshake_complete =
+				peer_a_lock.get(&fd_a).unwrap().lock().unwrap().handshake_complete();
+			assert!(!handshake_complete);
+		}
+
 		assert_eq!(peer_a.read_event(&mut fd_a, &act_three_with_init_b).unwrap(), false);
 		peer_a.process_events();
-		assert!(peer_a
-			.peers
-			.read()
-			.unwrap()
-			.get(&fd_a)
-			.unwrap()
-			.lock()
-			.unwrap()
-			.handshake_complete());
+
+		{
+			let peer_a_lock = peer_a.peers.read().unwrap();
+			let handshake_complete =
+				peer_a_lock.get(&fd_a).unwrap().lock().unwrap().handshake_complete();
+			assert!(handshake_complete);
+		}
 
 		let init_a = fd_a.outbound_data.lock().unwrap().split_off(0);
 		assert!(!init_a.is_empty());
 
-		assert!(!peer_b
-			.peers
-			.read()
-			.unwrap()
-			.get(&fd_b)
-			.unwrap()
-			.lock()
-			.unwrap()
-			.handshake_complete());
+		{
+			let peer_b_lock = peer_b.peers.read().unwrap();
+			let handshake_complete =
+				peer_b_lock.get(&fd_b).unwrap().lock().unwrap().handshake_complete();
+			assert!(!handshake_complete);
+		}
+
 		assert_eq!(peer_b.read_event(&mut fd_b, &init_a).unwrap(), false);
 		peer_b.process_events();
-		assert!(peer_b
-			.peers
-			.read()
-			.unwrap()
-			.get(&fd_b)
-			.unwrap()
-			.lock()
-			.unwrap()
-			.handshake_complete());
+
+		{
+			let peer_b_lock = peer_b.peers.read().unwrap();
+			let handshake_complete =
+				peer_b_lock.get(&fd_b).unwrap().lock().unwrap().handshake_complete();
+			assert!(handshake_complete);
+		}
 
 		// Make sure we're still connected.
@@ -4565,17 +4557,10 @@ mod tests {
 		}
 
-		assert_eq!(
-			peers[0]
-				.peers
-				.read()
-				.unwrap()
-				.get(&fd_a)
-				.unwrap()
-				.lock()
-				.unwrap()
-				.gossip_broadcast_buffer
-				.len(),
-			OUTBOUND_BUFFER_LIMIT_DROP_GOSSIP
-		);
+		{
+			let peer_a_lock = peers[0].peers.read().unwrap();
+			let buf_len =
+				peer_a_lock.get(&fd_a).unwrap().lock().unwrap().gossip_broadcast_buffer.len();
+			assert_eq!(buf_len, OUTBOUND_BUFFER_LIMIT_DROP_GOSSIP);
+		}
 
 		// Check that if a broadcast message comes in from the channel handler (i.e. it is an
@@ -4583,17 +4568,11 @@ mod tests {
 		cfgs[0].chan_handler.pending_events.lock().unwrap().push(msg_ev);
 		peers[0].process_events();
-		assert_eq!(
-			peers[0]
-				.peers
-				.read()
-				.unwrap()
-				.get(&fd_a)
-				.unwrap()
-				.lock()
-				.unwrap()
-				.gossip_broadcast_buffer
-				.len(),
-			OUTBOUND_BUFFER_LIMIT_DROP_GOSSIP + 1
-		);
+
+		{
+			let peer_a_lock = peers[0].peers.read().unwrap();
+			let buf_len =
+				peer_a_lock.get(&fd_a).unwrap().lock().unwrap().gossip_broadcast_buffer.len();
+			assert_eq!(buf_len, OUTBOUND_BUFFER_LIMIT_DROP_GOSSIP + 1);
+		}
 
 		// Finally, deliver all the messages and make sure we got the right count. Note that there
@@ -4605,14 +4584,11 @@ mod tests {
 
 		drain_queues!();
-		assert!(peers[0]
-			.peers
-			.read()
-			.unwrap()
-			.get(&fd_a)
-			.unwrap()
-			.lock()
-			.unwrap()
-			.gossip_broadcast_buffer
-			.is_empty());
+		{
+			let peer_a_lock = peers[0].peers.read().unwrap();
+			let empty =
+				peer_a_lock.get(&fd_a).unwrap().lock().unwrap().gossip_broadcast_buffer.is_empty();
+			assert!(empty);
+		}
+
 		assert_eq!(
 			cfgs[1].routing_handler.chan_anns_recvd.load(Ordering::Relaxed),

[ldk-reviews-bot]

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt! This PR has been waiting for your review. Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.